United States Department of Agriculture
The Forests of Southern New England, 2012
A Report on the Forest Resources of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
Forest Service Northern Resource Bulletin Publication Date Research Station NRS-97 October 2015 Abstract This report summarizes the U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) forest inventory data, collected from 2008 to 2012, for Southern New England, defined as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. In addition to providing regional and state-level summaries, the reports highlights three focus plots, one average or prototypical plot from each State, as a means to better tell the story of the forests of the region. Forests cover an estimated 5,128,000 acres or 59 percent of Southern New England—1,736,000 acres in Connecticut (56 percent of the State), 3,028,000 acres in Massachusetts (61 percent), and 364,000 acres in Rhode Island (55 percent). There was no substantial change in the area of forest land between the current, 2012, and the previous, 2007, FIA inventories. Nearly two-thirds of the forests of the region are privately owned and most of these forests are owned by families and individuals who own the land primarily for the amenity values their forests provide. Seventy-six species of trees were observed on the FIA inventory plots. Red maple is the most common species across the region, but eastern white pine, northern red oak, black oak, eastern hemlock, scarlet oak, and sweet birch are also common. Although the forests of the region are fairly healthy, there are several issues that are threatening them including: invasive plants, such as multiflora rose, oriental bittersweet, and Japanese barberry; and introduced pests, such as hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer, and Asian longhorned beetle. Human disturbances, such as development, are projected to have a substantial impact on the region and broad-scale natural disturbance, such as hurricanes, are other potential factors that will influence the future of the forests.
Acknowledgments We thank the many people who made this report possible. Field data were collected by Aarron Clark, Ira Goodnight, Robert Gregory, John Higham, Kate Locke, Joyce Quinn, Bryan Tirrell, and Ashley Zickefoose. Other people within FIA that were vital to this report include: Barb O’Connell, Chuck Barnett, Mark Hatfield, Dennis May, Jim Westfall, Bob Ilgenfritz, John Vissage, Jason Morrison, and many others. We also thank Gordon Boyce, Bill Hill, David Kittredge, George McCaskill, Chris Martin, and Jeff Ward for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this report.
Cover photo: Mist over Owen’s Pond on the Wentworth Farm Conservation Area in Amherst, MA. Photo by Brett J. Butler, U.S. Forest Service.
Manuscript received for publication December 2014.
Published by: For additional copies: U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 October 2015
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us
Printed on recycled paper The Forests of Southern New England, 2012
A Report on the Forest Resources of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
Brett J. Butler, Susan J. Crocker, Grant M. Domke, Cassandra M. Kurtz, Tonya W. Lister, Patrick D. Miles, Randall S. Morin, Ronald J. Piva, Rachel Riemann, and Christopher W. Woodall
Contact Author: Brett Butler, [email protected] 413-545-1387
About the Authors
Brett J. Butler is a research Tonya W. Lister and Randall S. forester with the Forest Morin are research foresters Inventory and Analysis (FIA) with FIA, Northern Research program, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. Station, Amherst, MA. Ronald J. Piva is a forester with Susan J. Crocker, Grant M. FIA, Northern Research Station, Domke, Patrick D. Miles, and St. Paul, MN. Christopher W. Woodall are research foresters with FIA, Rachel Riemann is a research Northern Research Station, forester with FIA, Northern St. Paul, MN. Research Station, Troy, NY.
Cassandra M. Kurtz is a natural resources specialist with FIA, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN. Contents
Introduction ...... 1
Ecological and Socioeconomic Context ...... 5
Current and Historical Conditions ...... 13
The Future ...... 28
Conclusions ...... 31
Literature Cited ...... 33
Appendix ...... 38
Statistics, Methods, and Quality Assurance ...... DVD
iv Introduction
View from Mount Grace fire tower, Warwick, MA. Photo by William Hill, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, used with permission.
1 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the 2008-2012 Forest What is FIA? Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data for Southern New England, defined as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and The U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Rhode Island. Instead of the traditional approach of program (FIA; www.fia.fs.fed.us) is the “Nation’s forest concentrating the discussion on state-level estimates, this census.” Since the 1930s, FIA has been conducting forest report highlights three prototypical or average inventory inventories across the United States to monitor trends plots—one in each State—and telling the “story” of each in forest area, composition, health, and other attributes. forested plot in detail. This approach is being tested These data provide foundational information used by as an alternative to the traditional format for the FIA policy makers, conservation professionals, and others to 5-year reports that may be easier to understand and more better understand the past, current, and future state of memorable and more compelling to readers. Along with the forest. simplifying and demystifying the FIA data, this approach allows the reader to reflect on how these specific plots FIA has established a system of inventory plots across compare to the state- and region-level statistics that are the United States in order to understand forest resources also presented. across broad areas (e.g., states and regions). There were 999 plots with one or more forested conditions This report begins with a general description of what inventoried as part of the 2008-2012 inventory cycle FIA is and how it is implemented. Next, the ecological in Southern New England, including 321 plots in and socioeconomic contexts in which the forests of the Connecticut, 553 plots in Massachusetts, and 125 plots region exist are presented. The criteria used to select in Rhode Island. the three “average” forested plots are discussed followed by discussions of the past, present, and possible future Prior to 1999, the inventory was operated in a “periodic” conditions of these plots and the forests of the region. manner —all of the plots in a state were inventoried in, The report concludes with some overarching findings ideally, a year or two and then the inventory efforts were and some additional resources that can be accessed shifted to another state. The first periodic FIA inventory for those who are interested in learning more about for Southern New England was conducted in 1953, the topics discussed. The section “Statistics, Methods, followed by subsequent periodic inventories in 1972, and Quality Assurance,” found on the DVD that 1985, and 1998 (Table 1). accompanies this report, includes state-level tables summarizing the FIA data and data quality information.
Table 1.—Inventory years and references for previous inventories in Southern New England conducted by the U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis program.
State Year Connecticut Massachusetts Rhode Island Reference 2003-2007 Butler et al. 2011 Butler et al. 2011 Butler et al. 2011 1998 Alerich 2000a Alerich 2000b Alerich 2000c 1985 Dickson and McAfee 1998a Dickson and McAfee 1998b Dickson and McAfee 1998c 1972 Dickson and Bowers 1976 Peters and Bowers 1977a Peters and Bowers 1977b 1953 Griswold and Ferguson 1957 Ferguson and Howard 1956 Ferguson and McGuire 1957 caption
2 INTRODUCTION
Beginning in 1999, FIA initiated an “annual” inventory Sidebar 1.—Plot-, condition-, and tree-level data collected on U.S. system by which a subset of plots in every state was Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis inventory plots. measured every year. The annual inventory for Southern
New England began in 2003 with 20 percent of plots FIA collects forest inventory data at three different scales: inventoried per year. Results from the first full cycle plot, condition, and tree. Plot-level variables apply to the (5 years) of the annual inventory, conducted between whole plot. A plot will have one or more conditions on it. The condition and tree-level data below are only collected on 2003 and 2007 (referred to as the 2007 inventory), are the forested portions of plots. Below are the major variables available in Butler et al. 2011. This report presents data collected at these three levels, a full list is available in from the second 5-year cycle of annual inventory data “The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and Users Manual” (Woudenberg et al. 2010). conducted between 2008 and 2012, hereafter referred to as the 2012 inventory. Plot level • Latitude and longitude Each sample point is associated with an inventory • Elevation plot consisting of four subplots covering a total area of • Ecological subsection approximately one-sixth acre (Fig. 1). Data are collected Condition level at three levels: plot, condition, and tree (Sidebar 1). • Forest type General attributes, such as elevation and ecoregion • Reserved status province subsection, are collected at the plot level. • Ownership class • Stand size • Age of dominant trees • Stand origin
Tree level • Species • Diameter • Height* • Tree status • Damage* • Volume* * These variables are only recorded or calculated for trees greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter.
Each plot contains one or more conditions that are determined based on land use (e.g., forest vs. nonforest) and forested areas being further subdivided based on reserved status, owner group, forest type, stand-size class, Figure 1.—U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis plot layout regeneration status, and tree density (these and other key (adapted from Bechtold and Patterson 2005). Macroplots are not used in terms are defined in the glossary that is found on the Southern New England. DVD included with this report). On each subplot, forest land uses are identified. Forest land is defined as a piece of land that is at least 1 acre in area, 120 feet wide, and either currently has 10 percent stocking by forest trees of any size or, if a timber harvest or other disturbance recently occurred, will likely have sufficient tree stocking in the near future.
3 INTRODUCTION
Specific information is recorded for all trees on forested variables are collected on a subset of FIA plots and conditions on subplots that have diameters of at least 5 are related to invasive plants, down woody materials, inches at breast height (defined as 4.5 feet above ground; tree crowns, soils, and, newly implemented (and not often referred to as d.b.h.). This information includes yet available for the Southern New England), tree species, diameters, heights, and general condition. regeneration. Information is also recorded for trees between 1 and 4.9 inches in d.b.h. found on the 1/300-acre microplots FIA conducts the National Woodland Owner Survey within forested conditions. (NWOS; www.fia.fs.fed.us/nwos) as the social complement to its biophysical inventory. The NWOS Because of the statistical sampling procedure, the data contacts a random sample of private landowners to collected on the plots can be used to estimate forest help understand: who owns the forests; why they own attributes for broader areas. The relatively coarse nature them; what they have done with them in the past; and of the sampling grid, i.e., one one-sixth acre plot per what they plan to do with them in the future. The data 6,000 acres, means that the estimates are not reliable reported here were collected between 2011 and 2013 for small geographic areas, such as counties, but are (Butler et al. in press). reliable for larger areas, such as states. One measure of the reliability of the statistics is the sampling error The Timber Products Output survey (TPO; www. that is included wherever possible. Sampling errors fia.fs.fed.us/tpo) is conducted by FIA to ascertain and error bars shown in the tables and figures in this information on the amount of wood that is being report represent 68 percent confidence intervals for the processed. Information on the volumes and species being estimated values. Other measures of data reliability, such processed, and where the materials originate are obtained as quality control information, are included on the DVD through surveys of sawmills and other primary wood that accompanies this report. processing facilities. The data reported here are from mills in Massachusetts and Rhode Island surveyed in For fuller descriptions of the FIA sampling procedures, 2010 and in Connecticut in 2011.1 estimation procedures, and database documentation, readers are referred to the “Forest Inventory and Analysis Where applicable, this report also brings in data from National Core Field Guide” (U.S. Forest Service 2012b), other, non-FIA sources. Remotely sensed imagery “The Enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (e.g., Jin et al. 2013) is an important component of – National Sampling Design and Estimation Procedures” the FIA program and allows for results to be spatially (Bechtold and Patterson 2005), and “The Forest extrapolated and provide other insights. The forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description projections incorporate FIA data, but were developed as and Users Manual Version 4.0 for P2” (Woudenberg et part of the Northern Forest Futures project (Shifley and al. 2010). All of these documents plus past inventory Moser, in press) and are based on numerous economic reports, tables, data access tools, and other information and other inputs. Information on invasive insects comes are available through the national and Northern Research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Station FIA websites (www.fia.fs.fed.us and www.nrs. Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS; www.aphis. fs.fed.us/fia). usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/home) and other sources.
Other FIA Data In addition to the basic forest inventory data described above, FIA collects data on forest health, forest 1 Piva, R.J. Unpublished results from the 2010 Timber Products Output survey of Southern New England. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of ownership, and timber products. The forest health Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
4 Ecological and Socioeconomic Context
Tree canopy in central Massachusetts. Photo by Brett J. Butler, U.S. Forest Service.
5 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT
To understand the forests of a region, it is important 80 to understand the context within which those forests 70 exist. The broader ecological context sets the general 60 parameters that determine the types of plants that can 50 grow in an area and the environmental conditions 40 in which the plants grow and compete. People have 30 influenced the forests of Southern New England for 20 Connecticut millennia; the social and economic contexts influence the Mean Temperature (°F) Massachusetts 10 past, present, and future forest conditions. Rhode Island 0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
Month Figure 2.—Mean monthly temperatures for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (NOAA, n.d.a.). Ecology The ecology of a region is influenced by the climate, Connecticut Massachusetts Rhode Island geology, and historical factors that culminate in what 5.0 are sometimes referred to as ecoregion provinces. 4.5 4.0 The climate of Southern New England is temperate 3.5 with mean monthly temperatures ranging from 25 3.0 to 72 °F (Fig. 2) (NOAA, n.d.a) and precipitation of 2.5 about 50 inches per year distributed across the year as 2.0 shown in Figure 3 (NOAA, n.d.b). The topography is 1.5 Mean Precipitation (in) Mean Precipitation (in) characterized by rich river bottoms surrounded by hills 1.0 0.5 and small mountains, particularly in the Berkshires of 0.0 western Massachusetts. Elevation ranges from sea level Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec to 3,491 feet atop Mount Greylock in Massachusetts, Month from sea level to 2,380 feet atop Mount Frissell in Figure 3.—Mean monthly precipitation for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and from sea level to 812 feet atop Rhode Island (NOAA, n.d.b.). Jerimoth Hill in Rhode Island (Fig. 4).
These factors contribute to the region’s dominant ecoregion province, broad areas of similar climates and Elevation (feet) natural vegetation, known as the Eastern Broadleaf 6,000 Forest Province across the three States (Bailey 1995) 0 (Fig. 5). The only other ecoregion province found within the region is the Adirondack-New England Mixed Forest Province (M212), which is the dominant ecoregion province of the Berkshires of western and north-central Massachusetts and northwestern Connecticut. This ecoregion province contains 30 percent of the forest land in Massachusetts and 2 percent of the forest land in Connecticut. Figure 4.—Topography of the northeastern United States (USGS 2014).
6 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT
Ecological Province There are important differences within these ecoregion Adirondack-New England Mixed Forest provinces. Ecoregion province subsections represent Eastern Broadleaf Forest Midwest Broadleaf Forest finer-scale differentiation based on areas of similar Northeastern Mixed Forest climate, potential natural vegetation, and soils. There are 16 ecoregion province subsections found across Southern New England (Fig. 6). The Southeast New England Coastal Hills and Plains (221Ag) and Hudson Highlands (221Ae) ecoregion subsections contain the greatest percentage of forest land area in the region—21 and 17 percent, respectively.
Figure 5.—Ecoregion provinces of the northeastern United States (Bailey 1995). Socioeconomics
The Ecorforestsegio wen Pr seeov inarece partially Subsecti onthes result of people interactingBerk shwithire-Ve andrmont influencing Upland (M211C thec) ecological factors Boston Basin (221Aa) M211Cd M211Cc M211Bb across theCa pelandscape. Cod Coasta lWhere Lowland andforests Island exists (221 Abacross) the region 221Ak Gulf of Maine Coastal Lowland (221Ak) M211Bd and how they are managed are largely the intentional and Gulf of Maine Coastal Plain (221Ai) M211Cb Hillsboro Inland Hills and Plains (M211Bd) 221Ai unintentional result of human decisions and are critical 221Aa 221Ah for understandingHudson Highland nots ( 221justAe the) past and present forest Long Island Coastal Lowland and Moraine (221An) conditions,Lower but Connec equallyticut Ri veimportant,r Valley (221Af the) future conditions. Narragansett-Bristol Lowland and Islands (221Ac) 221Af 221Ac Southeast New England Coastal Hills and Plains (221Ag) 221Ae 221Ag 221Ab Southern Green Mountain (M221Cd) Southern New England Coastal Lowland (221Ad) PopulationSouthern Piedmont (M211Bb) The mostTaco recentnic Mounta U.S.ins (MCensus211Cb) found that there are 11.2 221Ad Worcester-Monadnock Plateau (221Ah) 221An million people across Southern New England (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.); 3.6 million people in Connecticut
Ecoregion Province Subsections (738 people per square mile), 6.5 million people in Berkshire-Vermont Upland (M211Cc) Massachusetts (839 people per square mile), and 1.1 Boston Basin (221Aa) Cape Cod Coastal Lowland and Islands (221Ab) million people in Rhode Island (1,018 people per square Gulf of Maine Coastal Lowland (221Ak) mile). The population is not evenly distributed across Gulf of Maine Coastal Plain (221Ai) Hillsboro Inland Hills and Plains (M211Bd) the region; it is concentrated in the urban areas, such Hudson Highlands (221Ae) as Boston, Hartford, and Providence, along the major Long Island Coastal Lowland and Moraine (221An) Lower Connecticut River Valley (221Af) transportation corridors, such as Interstates 95 and 91, Narragansett-Bristol Lowland and Islands (221Ac) and the coast. Southeast New England Coastal Hills and Plains (221Ag) Southern Green Mountain (M221Cd) Southern New England Coastal Lowland (221Ad) Southern Piedmont (M211Bb) Taconic Mountains (M211Cb) Land Use and Land Cover Worcester-Monadnock Plateau (221Ah) Land use refers to the actual use of a given parcel of land Figure 6.—Ecoregion province subsections of Southern New England while land cover refers to what is directly observable on (McNab et al. 2005). the land. Land use is more anthropocentric, it is defined by how people are intentionally or unintentionally
7 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT using the land. Land cover is more biocentric as it is determined by the current conditions. These two concepts can yield very different statistics. A forest area that is harvested with most of the trees removed and is likely to revert back to forest would have its land use classified as forest land, but its land cover would be classified as something else, maybe shrub land until the trees can fully reestablish. Or an area that has houses under a canopy of trees may be classified as having a forest land cover, but its land use would be residential. The terms are often confused or conflated. Water Forest Developed Agriculture Land cover is estimable using remote sensing and can be Other more easily mapped. Figure 7 shows the land cover across Figure 7.—Land cover, Southern New England, 2010 (Jin et al. 2013). the region. From this map, it is apparent that there is a lot of forest cover across the region, but it is not evenly distributed. Connecticut Massachusetts Rhode Island 4,000
FIA classifies land according to its use and that is the 3,500 focus of the statistics in this report. The land use of an 3,000 estimated 59 percent of the land area of Southern New 2,500 England is forested. This is using the FIA definition of 2,000 forest land: land at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees 1,500 of any size, or land formerly having such tree cover, and 1,000 not currently developed for a nonforest use; it must be at 500 Area of Forest Land (1,000s acres) least 1 acre in size and at least 120 feet wide. Connecticut 0 is 56 percent forested (1.74 million acres), Massachusetts 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 is 61 percent forested (3.03 million acres), and Rhode Year Island is 55 percent forested (364,000 acres). Figure 8.—Area of forest land, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 1952-2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean. There was relatively little land use change in Southern New England between the 2007 and 2012 inventories Agriculture Developed Other and no substantial change in the total area of forest land (Fig. 8). Most of the region either remained forested or stayed nonforest (53 percent and 44 percent, Forest loss respectively), 3 percent of the land experienced either a forest loss or gain. Southern New England lost an estimated 99,000 acres of forest land between the 2007 and 2012 inventories. This loss was offset by an estimated Forest gain gain of 175,000 acres during the same period, resulting in no appreciable net change in forest land acreage. Fifty-eight percent of the gross forest loss was from forest 0 50 100 150 200 land being converted to developed land, specifically Area (thousands of acres) commercial and residential development (Fig. 9). Figure 9.—Area of forest gain and loss by land use between 2007 and 2012, Southern New England.
8 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT
Gains in forest land came primarily (64 percent) from Forest land that lies in close proximity to developed developed land reverting to forest, mainly open land in land or in areas of high population density is strongly residential areas and rights-of-way naturally reverting. Eleven influenced by the surrounding urban land uses. These percent of forest gain was from agricultural land uses. urban forests often differ from their rural counterparts in forest structure and function as they are exposed to The spatial distribution of plots that had forest loss or unique abiotic and biotic pressures associated with their forest gain is shown in Figure 10. The plots exhibiting proximity to developed areas. The higher density of change are more likely to occur near persistently forest-nonforest edges near urban areas can significantly nonforest plots. This suggests the forest-nonforest impact the flora and fauna of these areas by altering interface areas should receive additional attention for patterns of seed dispersal and by changing microclimate those interested in land use change. and site moisture dynamics. The proximity of human activity can lead to mechanical or air-pollution induced foliar damage as well. Pressures from wildlife, such as browsing from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), can also differ substantially between urban and rural areas.
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have the greatest proportion of urban area of any state in the United States (36, 36, and 37 percent, respectively) other than New Jersey. Twenty-four percent of the forest land across Southern New England is in areas defined by the U.S. Census as urban areas. The urban areas in Forest gain the region have tree canopy cover that is substantially Forest loss Remained nonforest higher than most other states. Sixty-seven percent of Remained forest the urban land area in Connecticut is covered by trees, Figure 10.—Distribution of remeasured inventory plots showing forest gains 65 percent in Massachusetts, and 54 percent in Rhode and losses, as well as plots that were unchanged, Southern New England, Island; this compares to 34 percent nationally (Nowak 2007 to 2012. (Plot locations are approximate.) and Greenfield 2012).
The FIA-defined forest land in the urban and rural Urban Forests areas are, in general, fairly similar across the region. Not all trees are in forests. Across Southern New England, For example, the tree diameter size class distributions there are about 317 million trees that are in urban areas are similar in the two areas. There are some potential (Nowak and Greenfield 2008) and while some of these differences in species composition, but more data trees are in what FIA defines as forest land, many are not are required to confirm this. Although the nonnative (e.g., they are in patches less than 1 acre in size or they and invasive Norway maple and tree-of-heaven are have understories that are maintained lawn). Tree cover relatively rare on forest land in Southern New England, in these urban areas offers a wide range of environmental it is interesting to note that these species are found benefits, including the provision of wildlife habitat, in greater proportions in urban areas than in rural aesthetic appeal and visual barriers, climate control, areas (1.1 percent and 0.06 percent, respectively, of water quality improvement, and air and noise pollution trees greater than or equal to 1 inch in diameter). In abatement. terms of ownership, both the rural and urban areas are dominated by private owners, but in the urban areas
9 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT
local governments control most of the public forest land compared to the rural areas where state governments are the dominant public ownership group.
The data in this report compare only FIA-defined forest land within urban and rural land. It is likely that greater differences would be found if all land with trees in rural and urban areas were compared. Much of the land with trees in urban areas is classified as nonforest land by Forested Area FIA due to its existence in patches smaller than an acre Forested Area Core and the maintenance of its understory (e.g., maintained Core High Integrity NonforestHigh Integrity Nonforest lawn). To address this information gap, FIA, in Med integrity Med integrity Low integrity ForestedForested Area Area Low integrity partnership with the U.S. Forest Service’s i-Tree program Forested Area Unconnected CoreCoreCore Unconnected began the first national FIA urban inventory in 2014. Unconnected HighHighHigh Integrity integrity Integrity NonforestNonforest Tree data within both forest and nonforest areas are MedMed Medintegrity integrity integrity being collected annually on FIA plots in certain urban LowLow Lowintegrity integrity integrity UnconnectedUnconnected areas around target cities and will eventually include Figure 11.—Forest land by spatial integrity index (SII) at the 250 m scale, urban areas in Southern New England. 2009. Processing note: Map was produced by calculating spatial integrity index for every forest pixel in the 250 m 2009 FIA modeled forest/nonforest dataset (Wilson et al. 2012). See text for explanation of special integrity index. Forest Fragmentation Another consequence of human population pressures housing densities greater than 16 houses per square mile is forest fragmentation—the breaking up of contiguous (known as the wildland-urban interface [Radeloff et al. areas of forest land into smaller, disconnected areas. 2005, U.S. Census Bureau 2010]) the percentage core Fragmentation can be problematic for wildlife that rely forest drops to 23 percent. on large areas of contiguous forest and beneficial to those species that thrive on edge habitat. We adapted a spatial integrity index (SII) developed by Kapos et al. Forest Ownership (2002) for the global forest resources assessment that Knowing who owns the forest is important because integrates three important facets of fragmentation it is the owners of the land that ultimately decide affecting aspects of forest ecosystem functioning: patch what, if anything, will happen with the forests. Private size, local forest density, and patch connectivity to core ownerships dominate the landscape of Southern New 2 forest areas. Figure 11 shows the SII of the Southern England (Fig. 12) and most of the eastern United New England forests calculated at a 250 m scale. At this States. Across Southern New England, 68 percent of the scale, core forest is defined as having a patch size >1,544 forest land is privately owned; 73 percent of the forest acres and a forest density of >90 percent within a 0.8 land in Connecticut is privately owned, 65 percent in mile radius local neighborhood. Unconnected fragments Massachusetts, and 73 percent in Rhode Island. have a patch size <30 acres, a local forest density of <10 percent, and are greater than 4.2 miles from core forest. Within the private category, it is family and individuals Calculated from forest cover data only, 47 percent of that own the greatest proportion. Results from the FIA the forest in Southern New England qualifies as core National Woodland Owner Survey (NWOS) for family forest (Fig. 11). When one takes into account underlying forest ownerships with 10 or more acres of forest land (the primary focus of the NWOS), reveal 84 percent 2 Riemann, R. 2014. Adaptation of a spatial integrity index to 30 m and 250 m scales, and its application across the northeastern United States. Unpublished.
10 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT
of these ownerships have forest holdings of between is fairly high across the region and this likely explains 10 and 49 acres and this equates to roughly half of the the relatively high percentage of ownerships with written forest land owned across this ownership group (Fig. forest management plans; conservation easements, 13). The average forest holding is 34 acres across the participation in cost-share programs, and green region and is 33, 39, and 17 acres in Connecticut, certification are much less common (Fig. 16). Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, respectively. The reasons for owning land primarily relate to amenity values, such as the beauty, nature protection, and privacy Beauty Nature their forests provide (Fig. 14). Activities on the land Privacy tend to be oriented toward personal activities, such as Wildlife recreation and cutting firewood for their own use (Fig. Home Water 15). Participation in preferential property tax programs Legacy Investment Recreation Family Firewood Farm Timber Cabin Acres Hunting NTFPs* Ownerships 0 20 40 60 80 100
*Nontimber forest products Percentage
Figure 14.—Proportion of family forest land and ownerships (with 10+ ac) by reasons for owning, Southern New England, 2011-2103. Percentages include those who responded that the particular objective is “very important” or “important” on a five-point scale; categories are not exclusive. Error bars Federal Family represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean. State Corporate Local Other private
Figure 12.—Forest ownership across Southern New England, 2011 (Hewes et al. 2014). Recreation Cut trees-personal Trails 1,000+ Invasives 500-999 Wildlife habitat Grazing 200-499 Reduced fire hazard 100-199 NTFPs* Cut trees-sale 50-99 Acres Roads 20-49 Acres Ownerships Controlled burn Ownerships Size of Forest Holdings (acres) Eliminated insects 10-19 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 *Nontimber forest products Percentage Percentage Figure 13.—Proportion of family forest land and ownerships (with 10+ acres) Figure 15.—Proportion of family forest land and ownerships (with 10+ ac) by by size of forest holdings, Southern New England, 2011-2103. Error bars activity, Southern New England, 2011-2103. Categories are not exclusive. Error represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean. bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.
11 ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT
There are no regional estimates for most of these values, Tax program but the FIA Timber Products Output survey (TPO) does
Advice quantify the amount of wood that is being processed. The TPO program canvassed all active mills across the Management plan region in 2010 and 2011 (see footnote 1 on page 4). The
Easement 21 active forest product mills in Connecticut processed 21 million board feet of material. The 45 active forest Cost share Acres product mills in Massachusetts processed 19 million Certification Ownerships board feet of material. The five active forest product mills
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 in Rhode Island reported processing a total of 631,000
Percentage board feet of material. Eighty percent of the volume Figure 16.—Proportion of family forest land and ownerships (with 10+ ac) by processed by the region’s mills came from within the participation in forestry programs and management activities, Southern New three States. New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, England, 2011-2103. Categories are not exclusive. Error bars represent a 68 and Vermont supplied the remaining material processed. percent confidence interval around the mean.
The remainder of the privately owned forest land is controlled by corporate (11 percent) and other private entities (9 percent), including tribal groups. These organizations hold forest land for a wide variety of reasons. For some, forest land is part of land they have for other reasons, such as a manufacturing facility, with their forest land providing a buffer between them and their neighbors. For other ownerships, such as land trusts and other environmental nongovernmental organizations, they may own a specific piece of land due to unique environmental features.
On the public side, state governments control 18 percent of the forest land, local governments 12 percent, and the Federal government 2 percent. These lands are managed by various government agencies that have missions that include watershed protection, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, timber production, or a combination thereof. The management of these lands is largely determined through political and regulatory processes and can be constrained by budget restrictions.
Forest Products The harvesting and processing of timber products produces a stream of income shared by forest owners, managers, marketers, loggers, truckers, and processors.
12 Current and Historical Conditions
Invasive buckthorn found in Leverett, MA. Photo by Brett J. Butler, U.S. Forest Service.
13 CONDITIONS
To tell the story of the forests of Southern New England, While there were no plots that met all of the selection this report highlights three average or prototypical criteria perfectly, the plots selected were close. The plots from across the region. Specifics about each of selected plots had all of the same values for the these plots are provided along with the region- and categorical variables and were within 4 to 11 percent of state-level summaries. There is no plot that is a perfect the averages for the continuous variables. The focus plots representation or average of all attributes across this, or are located in Litchfield County, Connecticut; Worcester any, region, but there is still much that can be learned County, Massachusetts; and Kent County, Rhode Island from examining plots that are close to the average or (Fig. 17). The Connecticut plot was measured as part prototypical plot. To identify a focus, or average, plot in of the annual inventory system in 2007 and 2012, the each State, the following attributes were examined: Massachusetts plot was measured in 2004 and 2009, and • Ecoregion the Rhode Island plot was also measured in 2004 and 2009. • Forest-type group • Age of the dominant trees • Stand size • Stand origin • Basal area • Ownership class • Distance to road
The average values for these attributes across each of the Figure 17.—Approximate location of the three FIA inventory focus plots States are listed in Table 2. highlighted in this report.
Table 2.—Average or plurality values for FIA forest inventory plots in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 2012.
State Attribute Connecticut Massachusetts Rhode Island Average/plurality value Ecoregion province Eastern broadleaf forest Eastern broadleaf forest Eastern broadleaf forest Forest-type group Oak/hickory Oak/hickory Oak/hickory Age of dominant trees (years) 74 71 69 Size of dominant treesa Large Large Large Basal area (ft2) 118 132 119 Ownership group Private Private Private Distance to road category (feet) 301-1000 301-1000 301-1000 a Small: dominated by trees less than 5.0 inches in diameter; medium: dominated by trees 5.0 to 8.9 inches in diameter for softwoods and 5.0 to 10.9 inches in diameter for hardwoods; large: dominated by trees greater than or equal to 9.0 inches in diameter for softwoods and 11.0 inches in diameter for hardwoods.
14 CONDITIONS
The Past Given where the focus plots are located and knowing something about the general land use history of the area, Although we do not have extensive stand histories for the species and ages of the dominant trees implies that the focus plots, or any FIA inventory plots, we can sometime during the late 1800s or early 1900s these surmise some history based on the age of the dominant plots were likely not forested. During this time period, trees and a general knowledge of the region’s history. A most of the landscape was cleared of trees as is evidenced representation of the age of the dominant trees across by the stone walls that proliferate across the landscape. It the region is shown in Figure 18. Eighty-one percent is likely the stands were from abandoned crop or pasture of the forest land across the region is found in stands land at which point old-field succession commenced and where the dominant trees are between 50 and 99 years a forest eventually took over. Following abandonment, old. The average age of the dominant trees, ignoring the initial pioneer tree or early successional species, such nonstocked stands, are: 74 years in Connecticut, 71 years as eastern redcedar, would have been the first to establish. in Massachusetts, and 69 years in Rhode Island. These species are adapted to colonizing disturbed or cleared areas with ample sunlight. They are often fast The age of the dominant trees on the focus plots at the growing species, but are also often not competitive with time of the most recent inventories was estimated to be species that establish later and can shade out the pioneer 71 years for the Connecticut plot and 74 years for the species. There are no remnants of these early successional Massachusetts and Rhode Island plots. trees in the current stands that can be discerned from the inventory data, but there may be downed logs or other The age of the dominant trees is an important factor for artifacts that could provide clues. understanding the stand, but it should not be confused with stand age. Stand age, meaning the number of Although land clearing by humans was not a dominant years since the current stand was established, can be disturbance across Southern New England 70 years ago, substantially higher than the age of the dominant trees other disturbance could have been factors. For example, unless the stand is still dominated by the initial cohort of the age of the dominant trees matches fairly well trees that colonized the stand. The age of the dominant with what one would expect for trees that established trees also needs to be interpreted with caution as the following the devastating hurricane of 1938 that single value recorded for each condition is not able to decimated much of the forests of the region. capture the diversity of ages associated with mixed aged stands. For those interested in understanding more about the history of forests and the New England landscapes in 50 which they exist, “Reading the Forested Landscape: 45 A Natural History of New England” (Wessels 1997), 40 35 “Stone by Stone: The Magnificent History in New 30 England’s Stone Walls” (Thorson 2004), or one of the 25 many other books on this topic may be of interest. 20 Percentage Another resource is the forest dioramas at the Harvard 15 Forest in Petersham, MA, that show an artist’s rendition 10 of forest succession from precolonial forests through the 5 0 mid-1900s (Fig. 19). 0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 100+
Age (years) Figure 18.—Percentage of forest land by age of dominant trees, Southern New England, 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.
15 CONDITIONS
a) Circa 1700 (pre-European settlement) b) Circa 1740 (early European settlement)
c) Circa 1830 d) Circa 1850 (farm abandonment)
e) Circa 1910 (old-field succession) f) Circa 1915
g) Circa 1930
Figure 19.—Photographs of the dioramas from the Harvard Forest Fisher Museum showing an artist’s rendition of the historical forested landscape in Southern New England. Photos used with permission of Harvard Forest Archives, Harvard University (http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/dioramas).
16 CONDITIONS
context for the focus plots beyond the numeric The Present summaries. Following the demise of the pioneer species, through natural disturbances or natural succession, the current species increased in importance and now dominate the Stand Structure three focus plots and much of the forests of the region. Across the one-sixth acre plot sampled on each of the focus plots, 24 trees greater than or equal to 5 inches Simulations of the trees on the three focus plots using in diameter were recorded for the Connecticut plot, the stand visualization software (SVS) (McGaughey 30 trees on the Massachusetts plot, and 31 trees on the 2002) are shown in Figure 20. Although the graphics Rhode Island plot. This equates to densities of 144, are simulations, they are useful for getting a better 181, and 187 trees per acre, respectively. The estimated understanding of what the stands look like and provide number of trees, greater than or equal to 5 inches in
Connecticut Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Figure 20.—Simulation of the three focus plots highlighted in this report for trees greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter generated using the Stand Visualization Software (McGaughey 2002).
17 CONDITIONS
diameter, varies from less than 10 to more than 400 35 2 trees per acre across all plots in the region (Fig. 21), 30
with State averages of 158, 180, and 175 trees per acre 25 for Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 20 respectively. 15
Trees with diameters between 6 and 12 inches dominate 10 Percentage of Plots the three focus plots (Fig. 22). The Rhode Island 5 focus plot has trees that tend to be a bit smaller, the 0 Massachusetts focus plot has trees that tend be a bit <50 300+ 50-99 larger, and the Connecticut focus plot trees has trees that 100-149 150-199 200-249 250-299 are in between, but they all have a diversity of sizes. At Trees per Acre the regional level, the diameter-class distribution of trees Figure 21.—Percentage of FIA inventory plots by tree density, Southern New shows there are more smaller trees across the landscape England, 2012. than larger trees (Fig. 23). 35
Another way of examining stand structure is to look at 30 basal area, which is equal to the cross-sectional area of 25 a plane intersecting the trees at 4.5 feet above ground. The basal areas are 105, 125, and 126 ft2 per acre for the 20 Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island focus 15 plots. The average basal area for the region, excluding plots 10 CT plot with no basal area recorded, is 126 ft2 per acre, but there is Percentage of Trees MA plot 5 a large range of basal area values (Fig. 24). In Connecticut, RI plot basal areas range from 5 to 327 ft2 per acre with a mean 0 30+ 2 2-3.9 4-5.9 6-7.9 8-9.9 of 118 ft per acre. In Massachusetts, they range from 2 10-11.912-13.9 14-15.9 16-17.9 18-19.9 20-21.9 22-23.9 24-25.9 26-27.9 28-29.9 2 2 to 423 ft per acre with a mean of 132 ft per acre. And in Diameter (inches) Rhode Island, they range from 1 to 224 ft2 per acre with a Figure 22.—Proportion of trees by diameter class on the focus plots for mean of 119 ft2 per acre. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 2012.
Based on the diameters of the plurality of trees, nearly 60 80 percent of the forest land is classified as “large” (see definitions in the glossary found in “Statistics, Methods, 50 and Quality Assurance” found on the DVD that 40 accompanies this report), as are the three focus plots. The dominance of trees of this size has been increasing 30 precipitously over the past four decades and now 20
represents 84 percent of the forest land in Connecticut, Percentage of Trees 78 percent in Massachusetts, and 70 percent in Rhode 10
Island (Fig. 25). 0
29.0+ 1.0-2.9 3.0-4.9 5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-10.9 11.0-12.913.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-28.9 Diameter (inches) 2 Only conditions that occupied at least 25 percent of a plot were included in this and other calculations of averages. This helps to avoid anomalous values Figure 23.—Proportion of the trees by diameter class, Southern New England, that can be caused by conditions that occupy only a sliver of a plot. 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.
18 CONDITIONS
60 Other ways of quantifying stand structure include
50 volume, biomass, and carbon. The most appropriate metric depends on the questions being asked. For 40 example, volumes are good for understanding the
30 amount of timber that may be harvested, biomass is good for looking at the amount of energy that can be 20 Percentage of Plots extracted, and carbon is good for understanding the 10 amount of carbon that is being captured or sequestered.
0 0-40 41-80 81-120 120+ The three focus plots have per acre net volumes of Basal Area (ft2 per acre) 1,977 ft3, 2,897 ft3, and 2,825 ft3 for the Connecticut, Figure 24.—Proportion of plots by basal area per acre, Southern New England, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island plots, respectively. The 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean. average volumes are 1,913 ft3 per acre, 2,030 ft3 per acre, and 1,806 ft3 per acre in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island plots, respectively, but there is a wide 90 Large range of values (Fig. 26). Summing the volumes across 80 Medium Small all forested acres yields state-level totals of 4,387, 8,138, 70 and 865 million ft3, respectively. Due to biophysical 60 and social constraints, not all of the wood in the region’s 50 forests is available for timber harvesting. The 14 percent 40 of the wood that is in trees that are rotted or otherwise 30
20 undesirable, the cull deductions, are excluded from the Percentage of Forest Area 10 reported net volumes. Forty-nine percent of the wood
0 is on lands owned by family forest owners. Butler et al. 1972 1985 1998 2007 2012 (2010) estimated that only 27 percent of the wood on Year family forest lands is readily available due largely to social Figure 25.—Percentage of forest land by size class of dominant trees, constraints, such as owners’ attitudes toward timber Southern New England, 2012. harvesting, experience with timber harvesting, and size of forest holdings.
18
16 The data depicted in Figure 23 changes dramatically if
14 expressed in terms of volume (Fig. 27) because larger trees
12 have more volume than smaller ones (and FIA does not
10 calculate volumes for trees less than 5 inches in diameter).
8 Half of the volume is in trees that are between 10 and 18 6 inches in diameter. 4 Percentage of Plots 2 There are an estimated 432 million tons of carbon 0 sequestered in the forests of Southern New England:
<500 4,500+ 260 million tons in Massachusetts, 142 million tons in 500-999 1,000-1,4991,500-1,999 2,000-2,499 2,500-2,999 3,000-3,499 3,500-3,999 4,000-4,499 Connecticut, and 29 million tons in Rhode Island. Live
Volume (ft2 per acre) biomass (i.e., live trees and understory plants) represents Figure 26.—Proportion of plots by volume per acre, Southern New England, the largest proportion, 51 percent, of the forest ecosystem 2012. carbon pool, followed by soil organic matter, 35 percent
19 CONDITIONS
(Fig. 28). Estimates of total carbon in Southern New The distribution of carbon varies over the course of England forests have increased by an average of 1.81 stand development with the most carbon being in the tons per acre over the last decade (2002 to 2012) or a soil organic matter and belowground tree components total increase of nearly 16 million tons across all of the of young stands until they are about 61-80 years of age forest land. when the aboveground components represent most of the ecosystem carbon. This trend continues well into stand There are differences in the distribution of forest carbon development as carbon accumulates in live and dead stocks by forest-type group. In the oak/hickory group, aboveground components. for example, 59 percent of the estimated forest carbon is in live biomass, whereas in the elm/ash/cottonwood Downed woody material, in the form of fallen trees, group, only 33 percent is in live biomass. branches, and twigs of all sizes, fulfills a critical ecological niche in forests. (See glossary section in “Statistics, Methods, and Quality Assurance” for definitions of terms.) This
16 material provides valuable wildlife habitat, stand structure
14 diversity, and carbon storage. The total carbon stored in
12 down woody material across Southern New England’s forest land exceeds 17 million tons. Most detrital carbon stocks 10 were composed of coarse woody debris, 57 percent. 8
6
4
Percentage of Volume Species Composition 2 On the three focus plots, five species were represented 0 by trees greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter on
29.0+ 5.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-10.9 the Connecticut plot, seven on the Massachusetts plot, 11.0-12.913.0-14.9 15.0-16.9 17.0-18.9 19.0-20.9 21.0-28.9 Diameter (inches) and 13 on the Rhode Island plot (Table 3). As would Figure 27.—Proportion of volume of trees by diameter class, Southern New be expected for forests classified within the oak/hickory England, 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around forest-type group, oaks are the dominant species on these the mean. plots, but the specific oak species vary; northern red oak dominates on the Massachusetts and Rhode Island plots and a mix of white oak and northern red oak on the
Dead wood Connecticut plot (Table 3).
The number of species on the focus plots represent a Forest floor fraction of the number of species of trees greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter found on all of the Soil organic matter inventory plots across the region. Fifty-six species of trees greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter were found Live biomass on Connecticut plots, 68 in Massachusetts, and 42 in Rhode Island (see appendix on page 38 for a complete list 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage of Carbon of tree species found on FIA plots). There were 76 species Figure 28.—Proportion of carbon on forest land by forest ecosystem of trees greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter component, Southern New England, 2012. found across all forested plots inventoried. If trees between 1.0 and 4.9 inches in diameter are included, an additional five species were found.
20 CONDITIONS
Table 3.—Trees, greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter, found on the FIA focus plots in A) Connecticut, B) Massachusetts, and C) Rhode Island, by species and diameter. Each entry in the table represents one tree with the row indicating the species and the number indicating the diameter of the tree.
A. Connecticut Species Individual Trees by Diameter (inches) White oak 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 13 12 12 Northern red oak 9 9 13 13 16 16 20 Red maple 5 7 8 Sweet birch 7 9 American beech 6 B. Massachusetts Species Individual Trees by Diameter (inches) Northern red oak 10 10 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 16 17 17 Sweet birch 6 7 9 11 11 Eastern white pine 7 8 9 14 Red maple 6 6 6 14 American beech 6 13 White oak 14 15 Black oak 6 C. Rhode Island Species Individual Trees by Diameter (inches) Northern red oak 7 7 9 10 10 10 10 15 16 19 Red maple 5 5 7 9 9 11 Pignut hickory 9 9 10 Mockernut hickory 8 10 Black oak 9 21 Yellow birch 11 Sweet birch 5 Shagbark hickory 5 American beech 5 White ash 8 Yellow-poplar 16 Blackgum 11 White oak 12
Some of these tree species are fairly ubiquitous and others Red maple quite rare. Red maple is the most common species across Eastern white pine all three States, in terms of numbers of trees greater than Eastern hemlock or equal to 5 inches in diameter (Fig. 29). Considering Sweet birch volume rather than number of trees, red maple is still American beech Sugar maple the most voluminous species in Connecticut and Rhode Northern red oak Island, but eastern white pine is the most voluminous Yellow birch species in Massachusetts (Fig. 30). Other common species, Black cherry greater than or equal to 10 percent of the number of trees White oak or volume in a State, are northern red oak, black oak, 0 5 10 15 20 25 eastern hemlock, scarlet oak, and sweet birch. At the other Percentage of Trees end of the spectrum, 22 of the species were found on no Figure 29.—Ten most common tree species as a proportion of all trees 5 inches more than five of the plots. and larger in diameter, Southern New England, 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean.
21 CONDITIONS
Red maple Oak/hickory Eastern white pine Maple/beech/birch Northern red oak White/red pine Eastern hemlock Oak/pine Black oak Elm/ash/cottonwood Sweet birch Oak/gum/cypress White oak Loblolly/shortleaf pine* Sugar maple Aspen/birch White ash Other Scarlet oak 0 20 40 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percentage of Forest Land Percentage of Volume *Represented by the Pitch pine forest type in Southern New England.
Figure 30.—Ten most voluminous tree species as a proportion of total volume Figure 31.—Proportion of forest land by forest-type group, Southern New of all trees 5 inches and larger in diameter, Southern New England, 2012. Error England, 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean. the mean.
The forest-type group of all three focus plots is classified Northern red oak as oak/hickory, the dominant forest-type group across the Red maple region (Fig. 31). This forest-type group is very prevalent Black oak in Connecticut and Rhode Island, where it accounts for White oak Scarlet oak 63 and 72 percent of the forest land, respectively. It is the Eastern white pine most common forest-type group in Massachusetts Sweet birch as well, but accounts for only 34 percent of the forest Eastern hemlock land; maple/beech/birch, white/red pine, and oak/pine White ash are other relatively common forest-type groups in American beech Massachusetts. The names of the forest-type groups are 0 5 10 15 20 25 based on the prevalent species at the national level. The Percentage of Volume loblolly/shortleaf pine forest-type group contains neither Figure 32.—Proportion of volume of all live trees of select species in the oak/ loblolly nor shortleaf pine in Southern New England, hickory forest-type group, Southern New England, 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the mean. but the pitch pine forest type is included in this group. The oak/hickory forest-type group contains many tree and a red maple. The Massachusetts plot had one species besides oaks and hickories. The oaks are indeed standing dead tree, a northern red oak. The Rhode among the most common species, especially northern Island plot had 10 dead trees recorded, most of which red, black, white, and scarlet, but red maple is also were still standing, including red maples, white oaks, and prevalent (Fig. 32); there are 63 species on the plots in northern red oaks. the oak/hickory forest-type group across the region.
As with the three focus plots, the overall trend for the forests of the region is an increase in volume. Between Stand Dynamics the 2007 and 2012 inventories, the net volume of The three focus plots showed net increases in volume. trees increased from 12.6 to 13.4 billion ft3; state-level None of the trees were harvested or otherwise removed increases were 8.5 percent in Connecticut, 5.0 percent in by people, but there were 13 trees that were either Massachusetts, and 11.4 percent in Rhode Island. The standing dead or otherwise died between the current and growth-to-removals ratio across the region is 4:1 (Fig. previous inventories. Two trees died on the Connecticut 33), meaning that for every four units of wood grown, plot: a white oak, which is still standing (i.e., a snag), one unit is harvested or removed, a broad indication of
22 CONDITIONS sustainability. Seventy-six percent of the removals were Some form of damage was recorded on about 28 percent due to timber harvesting with the remainder due to land of the trees in Southern New England, but there is clearing or other land use changes. The growth-to-removal considerable variation among species (Fig. 34). Decay ratios for the 10 most voluminous species indicate growth was most frequent damage on all species (12 percent of exceeds removals for these species (Fig. 33). trees), but it ranged from less than 5 percent on conifer species up to 22 percent on red maple. Most of Southern New England’s forests are made up of mature trees, so it Growth (net) isn’t surprising that decay is the most common damage observed. Mortality
None Decay Insects Cankers Weather Human* Animals
Harvest All species Eastern white pine Other removals American beech Sugar maple 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Volume (thousand ft3) Red maple
Figure 33.—Growth, mortality, and removals of trees on forest land, Southern White ash New England, 2012. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval Sweet birch around the mean. Black oak Eastern hemlock Northern Forest Health red oak It is important to consider not just the structure and White oak composition of the forest, but the overall state or health of Pitch pine the forest as well. Tree damage and crown health are two 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% broad measures that FIA monitors to assess forest health. Percentage of Trees While tree damage was measured on all forest plots, crown * Excluding harvests and other removals health was only measured on a subset of plots. Figure 34.—Percentage of selected tree species by damage agent, Southern New England, 2012. FIA records the presence of defoliation, foliage disease, cankers, decay, rot, fire, animal damage, weather, and logging damage on all trees inventoried that are greater Seventy-eight percent of eastern white pine exhibited than or equal to 5 inches in diameter. On the focus plots, branch or shoot damage from insects and 40 percent there were 85 live trees greater than or equal to 5 inches of American beech trees had cankers. The occurrence in diameter; 12 trees showed some form of damage. On of all other injury types was low. The high incidence the Connecticut plot, two trees had stem decay and one of damage on eastern white pine is largely due to the of these also had weather damage. On the Massachusetts accumulation of deformed stems caused by the native plot, six trees showed damage including four eastern white pine weevil, Pissodes strobi. Although the weevil white pines with damage caused by shoot/branch insects damage does not typically kill trees, the form and quality plus two trees had stem decay and one of these also of saw logs is negatively impacted. The high frequency exhibited weather damage. On the Rhode Island plot, of cankers on American beech reflects the long history of four trees showed damage, three with stem decay, one of beech bark disease in the region (see Beech Bark Disease these also with weather damage, and a yellow birch with section on page 26). a bole canker.
23 CONDITIONS
The crown condition of trees is influenced by various Cut Mortality Survivor biotic and abiotic stressors. Abiotic stressors include 100 drought, flooding, cold temperatures, nutrient 90 80 deficiencies, soil physical properties affecting soil 70 moisture and aeration, and toxic pollutants. Biotic 60 stressors include native and introduced insects, diseases, 50 invasive plants, and animals. 40 30 20 Tree-level crown dieback information is collected on Percentage of Basal Area 10 a subset of the FIA plots. Crown dieback is defined as 0 recent mortality of branches with fine twigs and reflects 0 1-10 11-20 >20 the severity of stresses on a tree. A crown was labeled Crown Dieback (percentage) as ‘poor’ if crown dieback was greater than 20 percent. Figure 36.— Survival outcome of trees on remeasured plots (2012) based on This threshold is based on findings by Steinman (2000), crown dieback in 2007, Southern New England, 2012. who associated crown ratings with tree mortality. Additionally, crown dieback has been shown to be the Invasive Insects and Diseases best crown variable for predicting tree survival (Morin et Invasions by exotic diseases and insects are one of the al. 2012). most important threats to the productivity and stability of forest ecosystems around the world (Liebhold et al. 1995, Crown conditions are very good in Southern New Pimentel et al. 2000, Vitousek et al. 1996). Over the last England forests. No species has more than 3 percent century, Southern New England’s forests have suffered the of live basal area containing poor crowns (Fig. 35). An effects of native insect pests such as forest tent caterpillar analysis of the trees from the 2007 inventory that were (Malacosoma disstria) and well-known exotic and invasive remeasured in the 2012 inventory revealed that the agents such as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), proportion of trees that died increases with increasing chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica), European gypsy crown dieback (Fig. 36). Nearly 70 percent of trees moth (Lymantria dispar), hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges with crown dieback above 20 percent during the 2007 tsugae), and the beech bark disease complex. More recent inventory were dead when visited again during the 2012 invasions include emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), inventory. Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), and
Red maple elongate hemlock scale (Fiorinia externa). Eastern hemlock Northern red oak Black oak Black cherry Hemlock Wooly Adelgid Scarlet oak White oak Hemlock woolly adelgid is native to East Asia. It was first White ash noticed in the eastern United States in the 1950s and Sweet birch Sugar maple is now well-established across much of Southern New Eastern white pine England (Ward et al. 2004). In areas where populations of Pitch pine this insect have established, they often reach high densities, 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 causing widespread defoliation and sometimes mortality Percentage of Basal Area of its host species, eastern hemlock (McClure et al. 2001, Figure 35.—Proportion of basal area of selected tree species that exhibit Orwig et al. 2002). crown dieback of 20 percent or greater, Southern New England, 2012. Eastern hemlock is a major component of the forests of Southern New England and some of the highest densities
24 CONDITIONS of eastern hemlock across its range are located in diameter), which account for 527.2 million ft3 of northwestern Connecticut and western Massachusetts (Fig. volume. Though widely distributed, the highest ash 37). Unlike in many other states that have been impacted densities are in the western half of the region (Fig. 38). by hemlock woolly adelgid, hemlock annual mortality rate, crown health, and incidence of insect damage have seemingly been unaffected in Southern New England. Asian Longhorned Beetle But it should be noted that the spread of hemlock woolly The Asian longhorned beetle is an exotic, wood-boring adelgid into northwestern Connecticut and western insect that attacks a variety of hardwood species found Massachusetts, where hemlock is the most abundant, in Southern New England. Maple (most favored), birch, is relatively recent and Morin et al. (2011) found that willow, and elm are the preferred hosts (U.S. Forest hemlock mortality increases were not substantial until Service 2008). Larval activity girdles the trunk, resulting hemlock woolly adelgid had infested counties for more in tree mortality. Asian longhorned beetle was identified than 20 years. The elongate hemlock scale is now in Worchester, MA, in 2008 and in Boston in 2010. compounding the damage to hemlocks across the region. Forty-six percent of all trees in Southern New England’s forests are susceptible to this pest. Maples and birches Emerald Ash Borer make up 62 percent and 29 percent of the available The presence of emerald ash borer was first confirmed in hosts, respectively. Susceptible host species account for western Connecticut and western Massachusetts in 2012. 4.7 billion ft3 of live-tree volume. Native to Asia, this wood-boring beetle is, as its name implies, a pest of ash trees, infecting trees regardless of Asian longhorned beetle has been a significant size and vigor (Poland and McCullough 2006). Tree contributor to urban tree mortality in the United States. mortality occurs within 1 to 4 years following infestation However, with a wide range of susceptible host species, depending on tree size and beetle intensity. The forests this insect could also have a substantial impact on the of Southern New England contain an estimated 65.4 rural hardwood forests. Quarantines and management million ash trees (greater than or equal to 1 inch in efforts have been initiated in Massachusetts that hope
Eastern Hemlock Relative Abundance White Ash Relative Abundance High High
Low Low
Nonforest Nonforest
Figure 37.—Relative abundance of eastern hemlock, Southern New England, Figure 38.—Relative abundance of white ash, Southern New England, 2012. 2012.
25 CONDITIONS to follow the successful eradication of Asian longhorned 1985 1998 2007 2012 10 beetle in other parts of the country. Final surveys are 9 underway to determine if Asian longhorned beetle has 8 been successfully eradicated in Boston (APHIS 2013). 7 6 5 Beech Bark Disease 4 3 Beech bark disease is an insect-fungus complex involving 2 the beech scale insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga) and the 1 Percentage of Trees that are Beech exotic canker fungus Neonectria coccinea var. faginata. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 21.0- 29.0+ or the native Neonectria galligena; both species of fungi 28.9 kill or injure American beech. Three phases of beech Diameter Class (inches) Figure 39.—Proportion of all trees that are American beech by diameter class, bark disease are generally recognized: 1) the “advancing Southern New England, for past four inventories. front,” which corresponds to areas recently invaded by scale populations; 2) the “killing front,” which represents areas where fungal invasion has occurred (typically 3 to trees with low vigor and slow growth that often succumb 5 years after the scale insects appear, but sometimes as to the disease before making it into the overstory. long as 20 years) and tree mortality begins; and 3) the “aftermath forest,” which are areas where the disease is endemic (Houston 1994, Shigo 1972). Invasive Plants Invasive plants are native and nonnative species that Beech bark disease was introduced via ornamental can cause negative ecological effects. These species can beech trees into North America in Halifax, Nova quickly invade forests and can change light, nutrient, and Scotia, in 1890 and subsequently spread across New water availability. They can form dense monocultures, England. By 1960 all of Southern New England was which not only reduce regeneration, but also impact generally infested. Currently, the annual mortality rate wildlife quality through altering forest structure and for American beech is slightly higher than that of all forage availability. Each year, billions of dollars are spent trees in the region (1.0 percent versus 0.8 percent). across the United States on inspection, management, and The impacts of beech bark disease on mortality of large mitigation of invasive plants. diameter beech trees have steadily skewed the diameter distribution of beech toward smaller trees (Fig. 39); FIA assesses invasive plants on a subset of inventory beech trees larger than 20 inches in diameter have plots that are visited during the growing season; visiting become increasingly rare across the region. plots during the growing season allows for better identification of annual plants that may not be easily Much of the beech forests in Southern New England, observable other times of the year. During the 2012 particularly the northern part of the region, have been inventory, 43 invasive plants and one undifferentiated infested by beech bark disease for decades and are in the genus (Table 4) were searched for on 195 forested plots aftermath phase of the disease complex. This phase is distributed across the region. characterized by a lack of large beech trees from years of beech bark disease-induced mortality, and is associated Of the 44 invasive plants monitored, there were 14 with large numbers of beech seedlings and saplings. species observed on plots in Southern New England; This condition, often referred to as “beech brush,” can Connecticut had 10 species observed, Massachusetts interfere with regeneration of other hardwood species, had 13 species, and Rhode Island had nine species. The such as sugar maple (Hane 2003), and is characterized by number of invasive plants observed per plot ranged
26 CONDITIONS
Table 4.—Invasive plants monitored for presence and absence on FIA invasive from zero to eight (Fig. 40). Fifty-three percent of the monitoring plots. monitored plots had one or more invasive plant species Scientific name Common name recorded. Across this region, multiflora rose was the Acer platanoides Norway maple most commonly observed invasive plant occurring on Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven more than 25 percent of the plots (Fig. 41); it was found Albizia julibrissin silktree on plots throughout Southern New England (Fig. 42). Alliaria petiolata garlic mustard Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Oriental bittersweet and Japanese barberry were also Berberis vulgaris common barberry found on a large number of plots (25 and 24 percent, Celastrus orbiculatus oriental bittersweet respectively). Centaurea stoebe spp. micranthos spotted knapweed Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Cynanchum louiseae Louise’s swallow-wort 50 Cynanchum rossicum European swallow-wort 45 Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive 40 Elaeagnus umbellata autumn olive 35 Euphorbia esula leafy spurge 30 Frangula alnus glossy buckthorn 25 Hedera helix English ivy 20 Hesperis matronalis dames rocket 15 Ligustrum vulgare European privet Percentage of Plots Lonicera spp. nonnative bush honeysuckles 10 Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle 5 Lonicera maackii amur honeysuckle 0 Lonicera morrowii Morrow’s honeysuckle 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle Number of Invasive Plant Species Observed Lonicera x bella showy fly honeysuckle Figure 40.—Number of invasive plant species observed on FIA invasive Lysimachia nummularia creeping jenny monitoring plots, Southern New England, 2012. Melaleuca quinquenervia punktree Melia azedarach Chinaberrytree Microstegium vimineum Nepalese browntop/Japanese stiltgrass Multiflora rose Paulownia tomentosa princesstree Oriental bittersweet Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass Japanese barberry Phragmites australis common reed Common buckthorn Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed Glossy buckthorn Polygonum sachalinense giant knotweed Norway maple Polygonum x bohemicum Japanese/giant knotweed Nonnative bush honeysuckles hybrid Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn Morrow's honeysuckle Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Autumn olive Rosa multiflora multiflora rose Reed canarygrass Spiraea japonica Japanese meadowsweet Common barberry Tamarix ramosissima saltcedar Black locust Triadica sebifera tallowtree Japanese knotweed Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Viburnum opulus European cranberrybush Tatarian honeysuckle 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage of Plots Figure 41.—Proportion of FIA plots monitored for invasive plants on which select species were observed, Southern New England, 2012.
27 CONDITIONS
new trees to establish and develop. Many of the new trees will be the shade tolerant seedlings and saplings that currently occupy the understory. But if large-scale disturbances do occur, like the hurricane of 1938 or the widespread infestation of a new pest, then the future forests may be very different than today.
Projection models incorporate socioeconomic, biophysical, and climate change scenarios. These modeled results are projections, not predictions, but are useful as a tool for understanding potential impacts. The projections presented here do not incorporate broad- Multiflora Rose Data Source: USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis Program 2008-2012. Phase 2 Invasive data. State Absence layer source: ESRI Data and Maps 9.3. Forest/ scale disturbances such as hurricanes or the introduction Presence nonforest source: NLCD 2006. Depicted plot locations are approximate. of new pests. These events cannot be effectively modeled,
Figure 42.—Approximate location of FIA plots monitored for invasive plants but scientists expect that climate change and human showing the presence and absence of multiflora rose, the most commonly activities are likely to increase the probability of them occurring invasive plant species of those monitored in Southern New happening. England, 2012.
There is some overlap in the data used in the previous Projections FIA invasive monitoring data for Southern New England, The analysis presented here is taken from the Future 2007-2009 (Butler et al. 2011), and the current data, Forests of the northern United States (Shifley and Moser, 2008-2012, but some trends are still discernable. The in press), which makes projections of future forest three most commonly observed species remained the same: conditions through 2060. These projections use the U.S. Japanese barberry, multiflora rose, and Oriental bittersweet. Forest assessment system (Wear et al. 2013) to project Multiflora rose increased in presence, occurring on 27 future forest conditions based on natural succession percent of plots, an increase from 19 percent in 2007-2009. with perturbations caused by land development, timber The second most commonly observed species changed from harvesting, and climate change. Japanese barberry in 2007-2009 to oriental bittersweet in the 2012 inventory. The presence of both of these species The projections are based on three scenarios that increased in this region with Japanese barberry increasing combine assumptions about the economy, population, by 5 percentage points and Oriental bittersweet increasing climate, and other driving forces (U.S. Forest Service by 8 percentage points. 2012a). These scenarios are based on selected International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios that represent the breadth of potential futures, labeled A1B, A2, and B2. A1B represents “globalization [and] economic convergence” with medium levels of growth The Future of U.S. population and gross domestic product (GDP). The A2 scenario represents “regionalism [and] less trade” The future of the focus plots, and the forests of the entire with high U.S. population growth and low U.S. GPD region, is uncertain, but there are some indicators and growth. The B2 scenario represents “slow change [and] tools that can be used to help understand some potential localized solutions” with low U.S. population and low futures and impacts. In the absence of disturbance, the GDP growth. current trees will continue to grow until senescence, individual trees will die, and gap dynamics will allow for
28 CONDITIONS
Under all three scenarios, there is an anticipated decline 6 in forest land totaling hundreds of thousands of acres 5 due to increased development across the region (Fig. 4 43). Specifically, over the next 50 years forest land area 3 is projected to decline from 5.1 million acres in 2010 Historic to 4.4 million acres in 2060 (a 13 percent decrease) A1B 2 under scenario A1B; 4.4 million acres (a 14 percent A2 decrease) under scenario A2; and 4.8 million acres (a 1 B2 Foreat Land Area (million acres) decrease of 7 percent) under scenario B2. Scenarios with 0 greater population increases and economic activity have 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 projections of greater forest land loss. Although there are Year projected decreases in forest land area under all scenarios, Figure 43.—Projected forest land area for Southern New England by climate forests are still expected to be the dominant land use change scenario, 2010-2060. across the region, representing between 47 to 51 percent of the land in 2060. Current A1B A2 B2 60 All of the scenarios result in lower levels of live tree 50 volume by 2060, due largely to the loss of forest land. The composition of the forests, as represented by forest- 40 type groups, is expected to shift substantially in the next 30 50 years under all three scenarios (Fig. 44). The areas of oak/hickory and white/red pine forest-type groups are 20 expected to substantially decline and the areas of elm/ Percentage of Forest Land 10 ash/cottonwood and the “other” forest-type groups are 0 expected to increase. It should be noted that although not part of the name, red maple is the most common Other species in the elm/ash/cottonwood forest-type group. Oak/hickory White/red pine Maple/beech/birch Elm/ash/cottonwood
Figure 44.—Current (2010) and projected (2060) forest land area by climate change scenario and forest-type group, Southern New England.
29 CONDITIONS
30 Conclusions
Buffam Falls Conservation Area in Pelham, MA. Photo by Brett J. Butler, U.S. Forest Service.
31 CONCLUSIONS
Southern New England is blessed with hills and valleys More Information that are flush with forests. These forests provide the people of the region with countless benefits ranging Information related to topics covered in this report is from clean air and water to recreational opportunities to available at: aesthetics to forest products. The forests have made an impressive comeback since the large-scale abandonment • National FIA Program: www.fia.fs.fed.us of agriculture beginning in the 1800s • FIA Program of the Northern Research Station: www. The current forests contain a diversity of species, but nrs.fs.fed.us/fia they also show a high degree of homogeneity in terms of size and age of the dominant trees. The lack of major • FIA, National Woodland Owner Survey: www.fia. disturbances over the past decades has led to a forest fs.fed.us/nwos that is dominated by stands with “large” trees that are in the 55- to 99-year age range. This presents challenges • FIA, Timber Products Output Survey: www.nrs.fs.fed. for some wildlife species that rely on early successional us/fia/topics/tpo habitat and results in forests that are potentially less resilient to threats such as insects and climate change. • State and Private Forestry, Northeastern Area: www. The lack of disturbance also makes it difficult for some na.fs.fed.us species, such as oaks, to regenerate. State Forestry Agencies The future of Southern New England is likely to remain sylvan, but if human population levels increase as • Connecticut Department of Energy and projected, the area of forest land will likely substantially Environmental Protection, Division of Forestry: www. decrease. Of equal importance to the future of the forests ct.gov/deep/forestry are the potential impacts that existing or new insects or diseases may have on the region or other broad-scale • Massachusetts Department of Conservation and disturbances, such as hurricanes. Management can Recreation, Bureau of Forestry: www.mass.gov/eea/ help prepare the forests for the future and continued agencies/dcr/conservation/forestry-and-fire-control/ monitoring can help us gauge the state of the forest and forestry.html set a course for where we, as a society, want it to be. • Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Forest Environment: www. dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/forest
Other Websites
• University of Connecticut Extension: www.ctforestry. uconn.edu
• University of Massachusetts Amherst Extension: http://masswoods.net
32 LITERATURE CITED
Literature Cited Brand, G.J.; Nelson, M.D.; Wendt, D.G.; Nimerfro, K.K. 2000. The hexagon/panel system for selecting FIA plots under an annual inventory. In: Alerich, C.L. 2000a. Forest statistics for Connecticut: McRoberts, R.E.; Reams, G.A.; Van Deusen, P.C., 1985 and 1998. Resour. Bull. NE-147. Newtown eds. Proceedings of the first annual Forest Inventory Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest and Analysis symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-213. Service, Northeastern Research Station. 104 p. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station: 8-13. Alerich, C.L. 2000b. Forest statistics for Massachusetts: 1985 and 1998. Resour. Bull. Butler, B.J.; Barnett, C.J.; Crocker, S.J.; Domke, G.M.; NE-148. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department Gormanson, D.; Hill, W.N.; Kurtz, C.M.; Lister, of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest T.; Martin, C.; Miles, P.D.; Morin, R.; Moser, W.K.; Experiment Station. 104 p. Nelson, M.D.; O’Connell, B.; Payton, B.; Perry, C.H.; Piva, R.J.; Riemann, R.; Woodall, C.W. 2011. The Alerich, C.L. 2000c. Forest statistics for Rhode Island: forests of Southern New England, 2007: a report on 1985 and 1998. Resour. Bull. NE-149. Newtown the forest resources of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest and Rhode Island. Resour. Bull. NRS-55. Newtown Service, Northeastern Research Station. 104 p. Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 48 p. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 2013. USDA begins final surveys to determine Butler, B.J.; Hewes, J.H.; Dickinson, B.J.; Andrejczyk, eradication of Asian longhorned beetle from K.; Markowski-Lindsay, M.; Butler, S.M. In press. Boston, Massachusetts. [news release]. Washington, U.S. Forest Service National Woodland Owner DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Survey: National, Regional, and State Statistics Plant Health Inspection Service. Available at http:// for Family Forest and Woodland Ownerships with www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2013/06/alb_ 10+ acres, 2011-2013. NRS Resour. Bull. Newtown eradication_ma.shtml Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Misc. Pub. 1391. Washington, DC: Butler, B.J.; Ma, Z.; Kittredge, D.B.; Catanzaro, P. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 108 p. 2010. Social versus biological availability of woody biomass in the northern United States. Northern Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, P.L., eds. 2005. The Journal of Applied Forestry. 27(4):151-159. enhanced Forest Inventory and Analysis program— national sampling design and estimation Dickson, D.R.; Bowers, T.M. 1976. Forest statistics procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, for Connecticut. Resour. Bull. NE-44. Upper Darby, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 85 p. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 40 p.
Dickson, D.R.; McAfee, C.L. 1988a. Forest statistics for Connecticut—1972 and 1985. Resour. Bull. NE- 105. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 102 p.
33 LITERATURE CITED
Dickson, D.R.; McAfee, C.L. 1988b. Forest statistics Huang, C.; Yang, L.; Wylie, B.; Homer, C. 2001. A for Massachusetts—1972 and 1985. Resour. strategy for estimating tree canopy density using Bull. NE-106. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Landsat 7 ETM+ and high resolution images over Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest large areas. In: Third international conference on Experiment Station. 112 p. geospatial information in agriculture and forestry; 2001 November 5-7; Denver, CO. Ann Arbor, Dickson, D.R.; McAfee, C.L. 1988c. Forest statistics MI:ERIM International, Inc. [CD]. for Rhode Island—1972 and 1985. Resour. Bull. NE-104. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Jin, S.; Yang, L.; Danielson, P.; Homer, C.; Fry, J.; Xian, Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest G. 2013. A comprehensive change detection method Experiment Station. 96 p. for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sensing of Environment. Ferguson, R.H.; Howard, M.C. 1956. The timber 132:159-175. resources of Massachusetts. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kapos, V.; Lysenko, I.; Lesslie, R. 2002. Assessing forest Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. integrity and naturalness in relation to biodiversity. Forest Resources Assessment Programme. Working Ferguson, R.H.; McGuire, J.R. 1957. The timber Paper 54. FAO. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture resources of Rhode Island. Resour. Bull. Organization of the United Nations. [unnumbered]. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Liebhold, A.M.; McDonald, W.M.; Bergdahl, D.; Experiment Statrion. 38 p. Mastro, V.C. 1995. Invasion by exotic forest pests: a threat to forest ecosystems. Forest Science Griswold, N.B.; Ferguson, R.H. 1957. The Monograph. 30:49. Timber Resources of Connecticut. Misc. Publ. [unnumbered]. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department McClure, M.S.; Salom, S.M.; Shields, K.S. 2001. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Hemlock wooly adelgid. FHTET-2001-03. Experiment Station. 36 p. Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Hane, E.N. 2003. Indirect effects of beech bark Team. 14 p. disease on sugar maple seedling survival. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33:807-813. McGaughey, R.J. 2002. Stand visualization system, version 3.36. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Hewes, J.H.; Butler, B.J.; Liknes, G.C.; Nelson, M.D.; Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Snyder, S.A. 2014. Distribution of forest ownership Station. Available at: http://forsys.cfr.washington.edu/ types in the conterminous United States: FOR_ svs.html (accessed April 17, 2015). OWN_TYP geospatial dataset [database]. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest McNab, W.H.; Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, Service, Northern Research Station. Available at http:// J., J.E.; Nowacki, G.J.; Carpenter, C.A. 2005. www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/Product/RDS-2014-0002 Description of ecological subregions: sections of the (accessed April 7, 2015). conterminous United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p. Houston, D.R. 1994. Major new tree disease epidemics: beech bark disease. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 32:75-87.
34 LITERATURE CITED
McRoberts, R.E. 1999. Joint annual forest inventory National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration and monitoring system: the North Central (NOAA). [N.d.b.]. Total precipitation in inches perspective. Journal of Forestry. 97(12):27-31. by month: Climatology by state based on climate division data: 1971-2000. Boulder, CO: U.S. McRoberts, R.E. 2005. The enhanced forest inventory Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and and analysis program. In: Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, Atmoshperic Administration, Earth System Research P.L., eds. The enhanced forest inventory and analysis Laboratory. Available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/ program—national sampling design and estimation data/usclimate/pcp.state.19712000.climo (accessed procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: April 17, 2015). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 1-10. Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J. 2008. Urban and community forests of New England: Connecticut, Montreal Process. 1995. Criteria and indicators for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode the conservation and sustainable management Island, Vermont. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-38. Newtown of temperate and boreal forests. Hull, Quebec: Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Canadian Forest Service. 27 p. Service, Northern Research Station. 62 p.
Morin, R.S.; Oswalt, S.N.; Trotter, I., R.T.; Liebhold, Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J. 2012. Tree and A.M. 2011. Status of hemlock in the eastern United impervious cover in the United States. Landscape States. e-Science Update SRS–038. Asheville, NC: and Urban Planning. 107:21-30. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 4 p. O’Connell, B.M.; LaPoint, E.B.; Turner, J.A.; Ridley, T.; Boyer, D.; Wilson, A.M.; Waddell, K.L.; Pugh, Morin, R.S.; Steinman, J.; Randolph, K.C. 2012. Utility S.A.; Conkling, B.L. 2013. The Forest Inventory of tree crown condition indicators to predict tree and Analysis database: Database description and survival using remeasured Forest Inventory and user guide Ver. 5.1.6 for Phase 2. Washington, DC: Analysis data. In: Morin, R.S.; Liknes, G.C., comps. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 564 Moving from status to trends: Forest Inventory and p. Available at www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/database- Analysis (FIA) symposium 2012; 2012 December documentation/ (accessed September 10, 2015). 4-6; Baltimore, MD. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-105. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Orwig, D.A.; Foster, D.R.; Mausel, D.L. 2002. Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: Landscape patterns of hemlock decline in New 210-215. [CD-ROM]. England due to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid. Journal of Biogeography. 29:1475-1487. National Oceanic and Atmoshperic Administration (NOAA). [N.d.a.]. Average mean temperature index Peters, J.R.; Bowers, T.M. 1977a. Forest statistics for by month: Climatology by state based on climate Massachusetts. Resour. Bull. NE-48. Upper Darby, division data: 1971-2000. Boulder, CO: U.S. PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 43 p. Atmoshperic Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory. Available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/ Peters, J.R.; Bowers, T.M. 1977b. Forest statistics for data/usclimate/tmp.state.19712000.climo (accessed Rhode Island. Resour. Bull. NE-49. Upper Darby, April 17, 2015). PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 38 p.
35 LITERATURE CITED
Pimentel, D.; Lach, L.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. TIGER/line shapefiles. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, nonindigenous species in the United States. Bureau of Census. http://www.census.gov/geo/maps- BioScience. 50(1):53-65. data/data/tiger-line.html (accessed April 17, 2015).
Poland, T.M.; McCullough, D.G. 2006. Emerald ash U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Asian longhorned beetle, borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat pest alert. NA-PR-01-99GEN. Newtown Square, to North America’s ash resource. Journal of Forestry. PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 104(3):118-124. Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. 2 p.
Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I.; Fried, J.S.; U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Forest inventory and Holcomb, S.S.; McKeefry, J.F. 2005. The wildland analysis field methods for Phase 3 measurements, urban interface in the United States. Ecological Ver. 3.0. Available at http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/ Applications. 15: 799-805. field-guides-methods-proc/docs/2006/Version-3.0.pdf (accessed April 17, 2015). Shifley, S.R.; Moser, W.K. In press. Future forests of the northern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. Newtown U.S. Forest Service. 2012a. Future of America’s forest Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest and rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources Service, Northern Research Station. Planning Act assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Shigo, A.L. 1972. The beech bark disease today in the Forest Service. 198 p. northeastern U.S. Journal of Forestry. 54:286-289. U.S. Forest Service. 2012b. Forest Inventory and Steinman, J.R. 2000. Tracking the health of trees over Analysis national core field guide volume I: Field time on forest health monitoring plots. In: Hansen, data collection procedures for Phase 2 plots. M.; Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources Ver. 6.0. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of inventories in the 21st century; 1998 August 16-20; Agriculture, Forest Service. 427 p. Available at http:// Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-212. St. Paul, MN: www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North docs/2013/Core%20FIA%20P2%20field%20 Central Research Station: 334-339. guide_6-0_6_27_2013.pdf (accessed September 24, 2014). Thorson, R. 2004. Stone by stone: The magnificent history in New England’s stone walls. New York, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. Protected NY: Walker & Co. 287 p. areas database of the United States (PADUS), Ver. 1.3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Census Bureau. [N.d.] Annual survey of Geological Survey. Available at http://gapanalysis.usgs. manufactures. Available at http://www.census.gov/ gov/data/padusdata/ [database]. manufacturing/asm/index.html (accessed September 24, 2014). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. National elevation dataset. Washington, DC: U.S. Department U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. United States Census 2010. of Interior, Geological Survey. Available at http://ned. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, usgs.gov (accessed September 25, 2014). Bureau of Census. Available at http://www.census. gov/2010census/ (accessed January 2015).
36 LITERATURE CITED
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Vegetation Woodall, C.W.; Monleon, V.J. 2008. Sampling continuous fields yearly L3 global 250m. protocols, estimation procedures, and analytical Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, guidelines for the down woody materials indicator Geological Survey. Available at https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/ of the Forest Inventory and Analysis program. products/modis_products_table/mod44b (accessed Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-22. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. April 17, 2015). Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 68 p. Vitousek, P.M.; D’Antonio, C.M.; Loope, L.L.; Westbrooks, R. 1996. Biological invasions as Woudenberg, S.W.; Conkling, B.L.; O’Connell, B.M.; global environmental change. American Scientist. LaPoint, E.B.; Turner, J.A.; Waddell, K.L. 2010. The 84:468-478. Forest Inventory and Analysis database: database description and users manual Ver. 4.0 for Phase 2. Ward, J.S.; Montgomery, M.E.; Cheah, C.A.S.-J.; Onken, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-245. Fort Collins, CO: B.P.; Cowles, R.S. 2004. Eastern hemlock forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Guidelines to minimize the impacts of hemlock Mountain Research Station. 336 p. woolly adelgid. NA-TP-03-04. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Northeastern Area. 4 p.
Wear, D.N.; Huggett, R.; Li, R.; Perryman, B.; Liu, S. 2013. Forecasts of forest conditions in regions of the United States under future scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2012 RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-170. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 101 p.
Wessels, T. 1997. Reading the forested landscape: a natural history of New England. Woodstock, VT: Countryman Press. 199 p.
Wilson, B.T.; Lister, A.J.; Riemann, R.I. 2012. A nearest-neighbor imputation approach to mapping tree species over large areas using forest inventory plots and moderate resolution raster data. Forest Ecology and Management. 271: 182-198.
Woodall, C.W.; Amacher, M.C.; Bechtold, W.A.; Coulston, J.W.; Jovan, S.; Perry, C.H.; Randolph, K.C.; Schulz, B.K.; Smith, G.C.; Tkacz, B.; Will-Wolf, S.A. 2011. Status and future of the forest health indicators program of the USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 177:419-436.
37 Appendix.
Tree Species in Southern New England Tree species, greater than or equal to 5 inches in diameter, found on FIA inventory plots, Southern New England, 2012.
Common name Genus Species Connecticut Massachusetts Rhode Island Balsam fir Abies balsamea X X Atlantic white-cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides X X Redcedar/juniper spp. Juniperus spp. X Eastern redcedar Juniperus virginiana X X X Tamarack (native) Larix laricina X X Norway spruce Picea abies X X Red spruce Picea rubens X X Red pine Pinus resinosa X X Pitch pine Pinus rigida X X X Eastern white pine Pinus strobus X X X Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris X X Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis X X X Boxelder Acer negundo X X Striped maple Acer pensylvanicum X X Red maple Acer rubrum X X X Silver maple Acer saccharinum X X X Sugar maple Acer saccharum X X X Norway maple Acer platanoides X X Ailanthus or tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima X X Mimosa, silktree Albizia julibrissin X Serviceberry spp. Amelanchier spp. X X Yellow birch Betula alleghaniensis X X X Sweet birch Betula lenta X X X Paper birch Betula papyrifera X X Gray birch Betula populifolia X X X American hornbeam, musclewood Carpinus caroliniana X X Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis X X Pignut hickory Carya glabra X X X Shagbark hickory Carya ovata X X X Mockernut hickory Carya alba X X X American chestnut Castanea dentata X Northern catalpa Catalpa speciosa X Hackberry Celtis occidentalis X Flowering dogwood Cornus florida X American beech Fagus grandifolia X X X White ash Fraxinus americana X X X Black ash Fraxinus nigra X X Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica X X X Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos X American holly Ilex opaca X X Butternut Juglans cinerea X Black walnut Juglans nigra X Yellow-poplar Liriodendron tulipifera X X X Apple spp. Malus spp. X X X (Appendix continued on next page.)
38 (Appendix Continued)
Common name Genus Species Connecticut Massachusetts Rhode Island Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica X X X Eastern hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana X X X American sycamore Platanus occidentalis X Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera X Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides X X Bigtooth aspen Populus grandidentata X X X Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides X X X Cherry and plum spp. Prunus spp. X Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica X X X Black cherry Prunus serotina X X X Sweet cherry Prunus avium X White oak Quercus alba X X X Swamp white oak Quercus bicolor X X X Scarlet oak Quercus coccinea X X X Northern pin oak Quercus ellipsoidalis X Scrub oak Quercus ilicifolia X Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa X Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii X Pin oak Quercus palustris X X Chestnut oak Quercus prinus X X X Northern red oak Quercus rubra X X X Post oak Quercus stellata X Black oak Quercus velutina X X X Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia X X X Willow spp. Salix spp. X X X Black willow Salix nigra X White willow Salix alba X Sassafras Sassafras albidum X X X American basswood Tilia americana X X American elm Ulmus americana X X X Slippery elm Ulmus rubra X X
39 40 Butler, Brett J.; Crocker, Susan J.; Domke, Grant M.; Kurtz, Cassandra M.; Lister, Tonya W.; Miles, Patrick D.; Morin, Randall S.; Piva, Ron J.; Riemann, Rachel; Woodall, Christopher W. 2015. The forests of Southern New England, 2012. Resource Bulletin NRS-97. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 42 p. [DVD included].
This report summarizes the U.S. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) forest inventory data, collected from 2008 to 2012, for Southern New England, defined as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Forests cover an estimated 5,128,000 acres or 59 percent of Southern New England—1,736,000 acres in Connecticut (56 percent of the State), 3,028,000 acres in Massachusetts (61 percent), and 364,000 acres in Rhode Island (55 percent). There was no substantial change in the area of forest land between the current, 2012, and the previous, 2007, FIA inventories. Nearly two-thirds of the forests of the region are privately owned and most of these forests are owned by families and individuals who own the land primarily for the amenity values their forests provide. Seventy-six species of trees were observed on the FIA inventory plots. Red maple is the most common species across the region, but eastern white pine, northern red oak, black oak, eastern hemlock, scarlet oak, and sweet birch are also common. Although the forests of the region are fairly healthy, there are several issues that are threatening them, including invasive plants and introduced pests. Also, human disturbances, such as development, are projected to have a substantial impact on the region and broad-scale natural disturbance, such as hurricanes, are other potential factors that will influence the future of the forests.
KEY WORDS: inventory, forest statistics, forest land, land use, ownership, volume, biomass, carbon, growth, removals, mortality, forest health
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
41 DVD Contents
The Forests of Southern New England 2012 (PDF)
The Forests of Southern New England 2012: Statistics, Methods, and Quality Assurance (PDF)
The Forests of Southern New England inventory Databases (CSV Files)
New England inventory Database (Access File)
Connecticut forest inventory summary tables (folder)
Massachusetts forest inventory summary tables (folder)
Connecticut forest inventory summary tables (folder)
Field guides that describe inventory procedures (PDF)
Database User’s Guide (PDF)
42 The Forests of Southern New England, 2012: Statistics, Methods, and Quality Assurance
United States Department of Resource Bulletin Agriculture NRS-97 Forest Service